Prior categoric studies found teachers correctly classified only about half of students' monitoring orientations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The review reports, citing Fleury-Roy and Bouffard (2006), that 51.32% of students were correctly classified by their teachers as pessimists, optimists, or realists regarding their ability estimates. → van de Pol 2024 q2 i? The review reports, citing Jamain (2019), that 45.55% (Mathematics) and 41.78% (French) of students were correctly classified by their teachers. → van de Pol 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

van de Pol 2024¶

van de Pol, J., & Oudman, S. (2024). Teachers' judgment accuracy of students' monitoring skills: a conceptual and methodological framework and explorative study. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09349-8

q2 · i? · associational · r2

The review attributes this to Fleury-Roy and Bouffard (2006), in which 74 primary school teachers classified 684 students into pessimist, optimist, or realist categories; '51.32%' were classified correctly. The reviewed study's design is described only as the article describes it.

"It turned out that 51.32% of the students were classified correctly by their teachers, meaning that almost 50% of the students were wrongly classified."

van de Pol 2024 (2)¶

van de Pol, J., & Oudman, S. (2024). Teachers' judgment accuracy of students' monitoring skills: a conceptual and methodological framework and explorative study. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09349-8

q2 · i? · associational · r2

The review attributes this to Jamain (2019), a follow-up study with 13 primary school teachers classifying 292 students separately for Mathematics and French performance.

"Overall, 45.55% (Mathematics) and 41.78% (French) of the students were classified correctly by the teachers."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The KEI threshold was accurate for the cohort despite large individual-level prediction errors (53% of proficient and 73% of non-proficient students correctly classified)
• Latent profile analysis identifies three learner profiles differing in cognitive factors, self-concept, and extraneous load, with significant performance differences — related